Bob Seely: Is Trump’s intervention in Venezuela risk free? No, but it may well turn out to be smart

Dr Robert Seely MBE is the author of ‘The New Total War’.

I’m sure Britain’s Attorney-General Lord Hermer will be having kittens about the US action in Venezuela, and yes, from the position of ‘international law’, I am sure it’s not the most justified action. But it is a muscular, if unorthodox, approach to defending the US national interest.

I’d argue that the overthrow of the Nicholas Maduro dictatorship makes sense, ethically and strategically – if not legally. Venezuela was a country collapsing under the weight of Socialist oppression, reliant on Cuban revolutionaries and Russian, Chinese and Iranian advisors for military, technological and intelligence support. The country’s oil and drug cartel income made it a threat to the stability of those around it.

Venezuela used to be a rich country, with the largest oil reserves in the world, but since 1999, the Marxist governments of Maduro (and before him Hugo Chavez) have laid waste to it. Venezuela’s GDP has collapsed. Inflation is at least 270 percent. Six out of 10 live in extreme poverty. Ten percent of the country have fled. Political prisoners rot in jail cells. In recent years, the elites have enriched themselves through the cartels, hence the charges now against Maduro.

This disaster has been caused by Marxism, which probably explains why it has featured so little on the BBC and in other leftwing media. Perhaps if there had been some Jews to blame, the BBC might have covered it more. Flippancy aside, it is remarkable how those who champion human rights always seem sympathetic to repugnant regimes: Iran, Hamas and Venezuela.

But back to the main argument. Strategically, the US is pushing back – shoving back might be a better image – on Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America. A month ago, the US unveiled its National Security Strategy. There was good and bad in there – and separately what Trump is doing in Ukraine isn’t great – but the strategy pledged to dominate the US’s back yard. This is that policy is action, Donald Trump’s version of the old Monroe doctrine, renamed the ‘Donroe’ doctrine.

There are three other major outcomes to this action. All will be felt on the other side of the world. All are good.

When Venezuela stabilises under a pro-US Government, it will (eventually) start pumping a lot more oil, pushing down the price of crude. That’s good for the world economy (unless you are a net-zero obsessive), but very bad for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s ability to fund the Ukraine war. Outcome one.

Second, it will also bring Venezuelan oil under US strategic control, threatening Chinese supplies should Beijing strike at Taiwan. That’s a big deal. The US is strengthening its global economic hand and doing so in a smart way. So, if this action is about oil, that’s a positive thing. It gives the US influence over Chinese actions too. Good. I want Western civilisation to have more power. Our nations need to think in terms of projecting and controlling power, and understanding that it’s not just about military power. The US administration gets this. I wish we did. Outcome two.

Third, Cuba will be next. Without Venezuela’s oil, Cuba is finished. What the US operation will look like, I don’t know; support to anti-regime groups, the use of economic, cyber and information tools? But, if there is any logic to Trump’s action, Cuba’s geriatric Marxist leftovers are next. It’s a matter of when, not if. Outcome three.

So, are Donald Trump’s actions risk-free? No.

First, As the old saying goes, if you break it, you own it. The US is without equal at doing sophisticated military operations at scale. It’s not always good at doing the politics afterwards.

Second, international law. It will probably be difficult to make the case that the strike was legal. But why does it feel that international law arguments are only ever used by those who hate the US, the UK, Israel and Western civilisation in general?

Yes, Trump’s actions will be used by China, Russia and others to justify their accusations of Western double standards – and it’s true that double standards have damaged us in the past. For example, the bombing of Serbia in 1999 and its partition a decade later, justified by human rights and the liberal internationalist crowd, did significant damage to our relations with Putin’s Russia.

But would Russia have behaved any differently since? I struggle to believe it.

Might China hold back from invading Taiwan because of the fine example previously set by the West? No. China will invade Taiwan if it thinks it is likely to succeed and if it will be able to mitigate the fall-out.

International law is used by China, Russia and Iran, amongst others, to attack the West.

Did China stop militarising the South China Sea despite a 2016 tribunal ruling against it? No. Did China respect Hong Kong’s status when Britain complained? No. Has China stopped locking up British citizens like Jimmy Lai? No. What practically have we done in response? Nothing: so much for defending international law.

Russia and China have already decided that might is right, and let’s not kid ourselves, we’ve run down our sources of power so much: the British army, the BBC World Service, the Foreign Office (hijacked by diversity and de-colonising obsessed Remainers), that we have too little influence to defend what’s right. If we were serious about the defence of international law and our interests, we’d do more than toothless pontification. We’d rearm, we’d explain to our people the new, multi-faceted threats our nation faces and we’d do more to integrate the sources of our power.

So yes, over-riding international law isn’t perfect, but a muscular approach to self-interest feels like a breath of fresh air. Sorry if that offends – and Trump has done more to defend the rights of Venezuelans than Maduro’s Marxists did.

Trump has shown that he will act in his country’s interests. In doing so he is damaging Chinese, Russian and Iranian influence: good. To Americans, he is securing his southern border, hitting the drug cartels and is taking the fight to anti-democratic Socialists. Cuba is next; no wonder so many in the States, especially Latinos in Florida, are loving it.

What, by contrast are the big foreign policy actions of this Government. First, secure the right of an Egyptian activist who hates us to come and live here. Second, pay billions to give away our strategic airbases to China’s allies. Third, recognise Hamas.

A painful comparison.